[Fouad]

In an International event , I was playing and in SCREEN and sitting south

the auction went as follow

west : 1♠ .... North : pass.... East : pass .... south : dbl
west : 4♥ ...... North : dbl ..... East : 4♠.......south : dbl
All pass

4♥ was splinter and was not alerted on both sides of the screen .... can any player imagine that the 4 ♥ was a splinter ??

the contract went 2 down , but ofcourse we missed game in ♥ or a slam with good play

The TD was world class director , former director in WBF olympiads and world cup
TD asked both opp , both said "it is an agreement , it was a splinter and we did not alert " .....TD went into discussions with his fellow TDs and then came back to me , " score stands cause bids over 3NT are not alerted , and you should have protected yourself by asking the opp "

ofcourse , i could not imagine this and in a screen ......I went to appeal
the appeal final decision was the same as TD

so , bids over 3NT are not alerted with or no screens in WBF
hope this helps

[LH2650]

Fouad, on May 4 2005, 02:07 AM, said:

so , bids over 3NT are not alerted with or no screens in WBF
hope this helps

You got a horrible ruling. Without screens, the splinter is not immediately alertable because it occurred on the second round of bidding. However, with screens it is immediately alertable.

In the case that started this thread, the spliner/Gerber bid was alertable even in F2F bridge without screens because it occurred on the first round.

The WBF Alert procedure may be found at http://www.worldbrid...tems/alerts.asp

[ducky_rh]

Thank you LH2650!

[Brandal]

ducky_rh, on May 3 2005, 05:52 PM, said:

I was not about to start bidding ♠s at the 5 level opposite a passed hand. And as has been pointed out, any bid by me would have been doubled and been down a few. So I certainly think there WAS harm.

Opps harmed themselves?

Although I feel when people choose to use a convention
like Splinter in an indy,they assume pd will understand
and therefore I would have alerted.

I still don't see a case here,you weren't harmed by no
alert.

[david_c]

Brandal, on May 4 2005, 05:17 AM, said:

Although I feel when people choose to use a convention
like Splinter in an indy,they assume pd will understand
and therefore I would have alerted.

Personally I agree with this. If I make a bid that I expect my partner to understand, then I will explain this to my opponents in whatever way is appropriate, whether or not we have an agreement. In my opinion, people should be required to do this. Furthermore, I don't believe that people make conventional bids unless they expect their partner to understand them.

But it seems that there are not many Law-experts who share this view.

[mink]

About alerting in an indi, I would rather suggest that there should be no alerts and explanations at all. The exception of course is that the partners happen to be familiar with each other. In this case, they should state this at the beginning of the round and then alert and explain whatever their system is. This policy should be officially announced.

This is different from playing with a partner for the first time, but in a pairs event. There, opps cannot know what was discussed in previous rounds or before the start of the tourney, and therefore I would alert e.g. a transfer even if not discussed.

Karl

[helene_t]

Many TDs state that all conventional (artificial?) calls must be alerted. This is very clear. You must alert Stayman, you must alert Blackwood. You must certainly alert Gerber and splinters.

[bearmum]

ducky_rh, on May 3 2005, 11:07 AM, said:

My LHO opened 2H...partner passed...RHO bid 4C (no alert)...I passed...LHO rebid 4D (no alert)...p passed...RHO bid 4H...then all passed.  RHO turmned up with a singleton club and LHO with a singleton diamond!!  I called TD and asked if alerts were required...ruling was no, the bids were Gerber and showing 1 Ace, neither requiring alerts.  I asked "Gerber over a pre-empt?"  TD responded "there was no pre-empt, there was a weak 2H opening"

What do you all think of this ruling?

Maybe this answer does not rely on the SPECIFIC hand that all had

I think it depends IF you are allowed to alert bids over 3NT (in Australia while bidding all bids over 3NT are NOT allowed to be alerted at the table and I think that's unreasonable -- because to ASK what a bid means and then PASS might convey UI to P --- but that's a different story!! )

BUT whatever the local rules are - SURELY you can ask (online anyway) what EVERY bid means??

If you don't ask yopu don't know what opps mean by their calls??

[DrTodd13]

Rules about not alerting over 3N are completely ridiculous for online play or for play with screens because the alerts cannot wake partner up. Until we get specific alert rules for online play from sponsoring organizations, directors have to use their heads and realize the no alert thing above 3N was to prevent people from being woken up which is not an issue on BBO.

[LH2650]

ducky_rh, on May 4 2005, 04:57 AM, said:

Thank you LH2650!

Don't get too excited! My quote was from Fouad, and my comment was directed at his case. I can only hope that a different set of regulations was in place when that ruling was made.

Your case is not rediculous, but you would have to argue that you would double, would later bid 4 spades, and that North would bid 5 hearts rather than taking advantage of the vulnerability to double you. All of that seems extremely unlikely, so no adjustment.

Personally, I would like to see directors assign procedural penalties against players who cause situations like this to occur.

[ducky_rh]

So in other words, even though players are required to alert conventinal bids, the failure to do so is not penalized. That makes a LOT of sense. We will certainly get everyone to alert conventional bids THAT way...cough cough cough. What ever happened to the policy of FULL DISCLOSURE??

You will all notice that my original post did not claim injury...all it did was ask if NO ALERT was the proper procedure, and further, did the director make a reasonable ruling?

Most seem to agree that an alert was the proper thing to do, and that the ruling was absurd. I don't think injury should have anything to do with the matter...if a procedure is not followed, there should be a penalty...PERIOD. Otherwise the rule is a paper tiger.

[Brandal]

ducky_rh, on May 5 2005, 01:23 PM, said:

So in other words, even though players are required to alert conventinal bids, the failure to do so is not penalized. That makes a LOT of sense. We will certainly get everyone to alert conventional bids THAT way...cough cough cough. What ever happened to the policy of FULL DISCLOSURE??

You will all notice that my original post did not claim injury...all it did was ask if NO ALERT was the proper procedure, and further, did the director make a reasonable ruling?

Most seem to agree that an alert was the proper thing to do, and that the ruling was absurd. I don't think injury should have anything to do with the matter...if a procedure is not followed, there should be a penalty...PERIOD. Otherwise the rule is a paper tiger.

It was an Indy,full disclosure is for partnership agreements.

The ruling was good,what was ridiculous was the TD explaining
the bid.

Like I said,I would alert,since I would not bid that way unless I
assume pd will figure out what it means.

Luis will fill in the blanks,including it's wrong to alert

Right Luis?

[hrothgar]

ducky_rh, on May 5 2005, 09:23 PM, said:

Most seem to agree that an alert was the proper thing to do, and that the ruling was absurd. I don't think injury should have anything to do with the matter...if a procedure is not followed, there should be a penalty...PERIOD. Otherwise the rule is a paper tiger.

Does Duckyland bear any relation to reality?

As I count there are a total of twelve different people posting in this thread...
Eight of them state that the Director made the right call. Your side was not harmed by the lack of an alert. Four individuals focus on the lack of an alert and do comment regarding whether there should be an adjustment...

As to your suggestion regarding proceedural penalties...

Currently the BBO software does not permit the Director to adjust scores in this manner... Equally significant, no-one in their right mind really cares about how they place in a throw away indy on the Internet... But, since this seems so import to you, I hearby declare that your opponents are "Bad People".

Does this make it all better?

[LH2650]

ducky_rh, on May 5 2005, 01:23 PM, said:

So in other words, even though players are required to alert conventinal bids, the failure to do so is not penalized.

Not at all! Suppose you were not vulnerable. Then the bidding I mentioned in the my previous post becomes much more plausible, and you might get a score of +50 for 5 hearts down 1, beating par, without taking any risk.

Also, whenever there is a failure to alert, the Director is empowered to assess a procedural penalty. I have not seen this actually done, but it should be if multiple offenses come to the attention of the Director, even over several tournaments.

[Brandal]

LH2650, on May 5 2005, 07:19 PM, said:

the Director is empowered to assess a procedural penalty. I have not seen this actually done

I've seen this alot.....

You have to play the rest of the tournament
in sneakers and with a heavy backpack.

[mycroft]

ducky_rh, on May 5 2005, 07:23 PM, said:

So in other words, even though players are required to alert conventinal bids, the failure to do so is not penalized.  That makes a LOT of sense.  We will certainly get everyone to alert conventional bids THAT way...cough cough cough.  What ever happened to the policy of FULL DISCLOSURE??

4 quick comments:

1) There is such a thing as a procedural penalty in the form of a warning. Yes, there are corollaries in other sports; hockey referees will, occasionally, say "that's enough - next one like that will be penalized" to talking back to the referee, footie refs often say "look, that's just not on. Try anything like that again, and you're getting carded". These are for violations that aren't bad enough to be looked at "officially", but we want them to stop NOW.

And yes, when I direct and I hand out one of those warnings, I make sure that the rest of the directing staff know that I have, so if another director gets the call next time, the history is there.

2) All it takes - trust me - is one misexplanation (including missed alerts) that *does* cause damage for the point to be driven home in spades. The last one I had with my Precision system - and that wasn't failure to Alert, partner was mistaken and bid with the same misexplanation that he gave the opps - cost us 1500 points, and 10/12 MPs. If they slough off the warning, well, next time their top becomes a bottom, eh?

3) If I penalized, with the 'standard' 1/4board penalty, every procedural violation that happened on my standard "big game" club night - assuming I could see them all, and had time to breathe, never mind sit down and assess the penalties - nobody would have a positive score. I guarantee it. And I'm pretty certain there isn't a club in the world who can say otherwise. Oh, and within three weeks, I wouldn't have a game, either.

4) I play "unusual" systems, that require a lot of Alerts and develop a lot of explanations. Again, trust me, what happens to Full Disclosure is that most players don't want it, don't get it, and can't remember enough about their own system to give it. Ah well, that's why I win.

Michael.

[mink]

mycroft, on May 9 2005, 06:24 PM, said:

3) If I penalized, with the 'standard' 1/4board penalty, every procedural violation that happened on my standard "big game" club night - assuming I could see them all, and had time to breathe, never mind sit down and assess the penalties - nobody would have a positive score. I guarantee it. And I'm pretty certain there isn't a club in the world who can say otherwise. Oh, and within three weeks, I wouldn't have a game, either.

This is very true for my local club, too

[Rebound]

ducky_rh, on May 3 2005, 03:19 PM, said:

I did in fact ask what both bids were, and received no answer. We were under a strict time limit also, so there was not time to fuss.

Well, this is, in fact, where the damage may lay if anything. It is one thing to debate whether or not a given call should be alerted. But a full explanation of any call is required if requested by the opponent. For this, perhaps a procedural penalty might be deserved. But as you mention, you were under time constraints, so I would consider those to be extenuating circumstances and to me a warning would be sufficient since the consensus seems to be you were not damaged by the failure to explain.